>>> A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO JAIL MORE PEOPLE WITHOUT BAIL.

CONTROVERSY OVER NATIONAL GUARD BILL.

PLUGS A STATEWIDE ENERGY PLAN AND MORE.

FROM THE TELEVISION STUDIOS OF WFYI, IT'S INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW FOR THE WEEK ENDING JANUARY 27, 2023.

INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE SUPPORTERS OF INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING STATIONS.

>>> THIS WEEK INDIANA SENATE REPUBLICANS VOTED TO CHANGE THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO ALLOW JUDGES TO WITHHOLD BAIL ENTIRELY FOR A LOTS MORE PEOPLE.

>>> THE CURRENT CONSTITUTION REQUIRES JUDGES TO OFFER BAIL EXCEPT WHEN A PERSON IS CHARGED WITH MURDER OR TREASON.

A AMENDMENT WOULD EXPAND THAT TO ALLOW BAIL TO BE WITHHELD FOR ANY CRIME AS LONG AS THE PERSON IS A SUBSTANTIAL RISK TO THE PUBLIC.

COURTNEY CURTIS REPRESENTS PROSECUTORS, SHE SAYS JUDGES SHOULD HAVE THE FREEDOM TO MAKE INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS ABOUT INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS.

>> IF YOU LIMIT IT TO A CERTAIN NUMBER OF CRIMES, THEN YOU RUN THE RISK OVERTHOUGHT INCLUDING FOLKS THAT YOU WANT TO INCLUDED AND INCLUDING FOLKS YOU WOULD RATHER NOT.

>> INDIANA PUBLIC DEFERREDDER COUNCIL SAYS THE PROPOSED EXPANSION WOULD WIDEN DISPARITIES IN THE SYSTEM.

>> FRIGHTENING TO THINK IF WHAT ERICA SAID THERE IS EC NEXUS BETWEEN CHARGE LEVEL AND LOSING YOUR FREEDOM.

>> EVEN IF THE LEGISLATURE APPROVES THE AMENDMENT THIS YEAR WILL HAVE TO APPROVE THIS IT AGAIN BEFORE IT GOES ON THE BALLOT FOR VOTERS TO APPROVE.

>> IS THIS A GOOD CHANGE TO THE INDIANA CONSTITUTION IN IT'S THE FIRST WEEK FOR OUR INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW PANEL.

DEMOCRAT ANN DELANY, AND NIKI KELLY EDITOR INFORM CHIEF OF THE INDIANA CHRONICLE.

I'M BRANDON SMITH AND DELANY SHOULD WE GIVE JUDGES MORE FLEXIBILITY IN.

>> JUDGES HAVE ALL THE FLEXIBILITY THEY NEED RIGHT NOW.

THEY CAN LOOK AT THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENSE, IF LIKELIHOOD OF FLEEING AND THEY CAN SETTLE THE BAIL WHEREVER THEM THEY WANT.

THINGS A BILL THAT REPUBLICANS PERIODICALLY COME UP WITH TO SHOW THEY'RE REALLY TOUGH ON CRIME S WE'RE GOING TO SPEND A LOT OF MONEY ON A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT REALLY DOESN'T DO ANYTHING THAT JUDGES CAN'T DO ALREADY, SO NO IT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA.

>> IN IT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING WHAT'S THE HARM?

>> WHAT A GREAT IDEA.

WE'RE ALL IN FAVOR OF GARDENING, LET'S PUT THAT IN THE CONSTITUTION.

IT DOESN'T DO ANY HARM.

>> BACK TO BAIL, IT'S A PRETTY BLUNT STANDARD THAT BAIL IS OPTIONAL EXCEPT FOR MURDER AND TREASON, WHICH DOESN'T -- IF YOU START -- THE ALTERNATIVE IS YOU LIST OUT VIOLENT CRIMES, A SERIAL RAPIST, THIS THING HAPPENED IN CAROL COUNTY, THIS THING HAPPEN IN CAROL COUNTY, SOMEBODY GETS OUT AND RAPED OR MURDERED SOMEONE ELSE AND ESCALATED THE CRIME, SO CHANGING THE STANDARD FROM THIS BLUNT INSTRUMENT TO JUDICIAL FLEXIBILITY ALLOWS THEM TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE CRITERIA AT THE LOCAL LEVEL I THINK IS THE RIGHT DIRECTION TO GO.

>> JOHN, THERE'S SYNERGY HERE, YOU TALKED ABOUT THIS ON THIS WEEK'S EPISODE OF INDIANA LAWMAKERS.

BUT WE ARE FAR FROM THE ONLY STATE THAT WOULD HAVE THIS IF WE DO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION, SO AGAIN THERE HARM IN GIVING JUDGES FLEXIBILITY?

>> SOME STATES ARE MOVING IN THIS DIRECTION BUT OTHER STATES HAVE GONE TO OPPOSITE WAY.

YOU LOOK AT FOR INSTANCE NEW JERSEY WHICH AFEW YEARS AGO TRIED TO GET RID OF CASH BAIL, AND ALMOST ALL CIRCUMSTANCES, IF YOU HAVE A VIOLENT OFFENSE YOU'RE HELD FOR MAYBE 48 HOURS BUT SHORT OF THAT YOU GET A SUMMONS, AND EARLY DATA SUGGESTS THAT PEOPLE ARE STILL APPEARING IN COURT AT ROUGHLY THE SAME RATE.

MEANWHILE THE JAIL POPULATIONS HAVE GONE DOWN 35 PERCENT WHICH HAS GOOD NEWS FOR FOLKS, CAN OTHER STATES NEW MEXICO AND OTHERS HAVE DONE THIS AS WELL.

AND IN INDIANA IF YOU LOOK AT CRIMINAL RULE TWO SICK, WHICH AFTER FOUR YEARS OF STUDY AND PILOT PROGRAMS THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT ISSUED THIS ORDER THIS 2020 I BELIEVE WHICH AGAIN WAS DESIGNED TO SORT OF YARD SOME STRUCTURE AND ENCOURAGEMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE AREN'T A THREAT OR A FLIGHT RISK ARE NOT HELD UNNECESSARILY, AND TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A COUNTER TO CERTAINLY A FEW HIGH PROFILE INSTANCES THAT GOT A LOT OF ATTENTION, OR IF IT'S RULE 26 OR ALL OF THE ABOVE, TO THE EXTENT THAT THIS IS DERAILEDDED IF YOU'RE APP OPPONENT, IT HAPPENED TO BE IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY BY THE TIME THIS GETS ON THE BALLOT.

THEY CERTAINLILY SAY YOU THINK JUDGES SHOULD KEEP BAD PEOPLE WHO ARE DANGEROUS BEHIND BARS AND I'M BEING WHAT HYPERBOLLIC, AND I DON'T THINK THE PUBLIC IS GOING TO THINK THAT NOT NECESSARILY A GOOD IDEA.

>>> THE IDEA THOUGH OF WE SEE STATES ACROSS THE COUNTRY MOVING AWAY FROM BAIL BECAUSE INCREASINGLY IT BECOMES AN ISSUE OF WELL, IF YOU'RE RICH YOU DON'T HAVE TO STAY IN PRISON AND IF YOU'RE NOT YOU DO.

EVEN IF INDIANA WANTED TO MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION, THIS AMENDMENT WOULDN'T PRECLUDE THEM FROM DOING I WOULD.

IT DOESN'T SAY YOU HAVE TO OFFER BAIL, IT JUST SAYS YOU CAN'T WITHHOLD BAIL FOR A LONGER LIST OF -- PRETTY MUCH ANY CRIME AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT A SUBSTANTIAL RISK TO THE PUBLIC, BUT SOME REPUBLICANS VOTED AGAINST THIS AND IF THERE IS A CHANCE THIS IS DERAILED IS IT FROM A PERSPECTIVE OF HOW DEFINE A SUBSTANTIAL RISK?

>> THAT'S THE POINT THAT IT'S VAGUE, AND THAT AS A CITIZEN, AND I THINK THIS IS IN THE CONSTITUTION, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO TELL FROM A LAW OR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WHAT THAT MEANS AND THIS IS SO SUBJECTIVE TO EACH JUDGE THAT YOU WOULDN'T KNOW IF YOU WERE ABLE TO GET BAIL FOR X.

SO THAT'S THE CONFUSION ABOUT VAGUENESS THERE.

AND IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THEY'RE INTERESTED IN CLEARING THAT UP.

I MEAN WHAT I FOUND IRONIC WAS THE STATEMENT BY SEVERAL REPUBLICANS SAYING THAT'S WHAT THE COURTS ARE IF, THEY'LL INTERPRET IT, WHICH IS NOT WHAT YOU GENERALLY HEAR ON OTHER ITEMS.

>>> ON INDIANA LAWMAKERS THIS WEEK, HE POINTED OUT, SENATOR FROM CHESTERTON, HE SAID WHAT ABOUT ASSOCIATION?

HE SAID THIS PERSON MIGHT POSE A RISK BECAUSE HE'S A MEMBER OF A GANG, AND HE USED AN EXAMPLE OF NRA OWNERSHIP WHICH TURNS THAT ARGUMENT ON ITS HEAD AND STRIKES AT THE NOTION OF ATILLUATION THAT REPUBLICANS MIGHTS SEE AS LESS SEND SINISTER BUT THE PUBLIC MIGHT SEE WITH -- ENTHUSIASM ABOUT GUNS SO THAT RAISES AN INTERESTING QUESTION.

>>> YOU ALSO HAVE TO CONSIDER THAT WE HAVE THE PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE AND JUDGES STAND FOR ELECTION TOO, AND THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DENY BAIL, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME POLITICAL PRESSURE ON THEM TOO.

AND YOU HAVE TO AT LEAST CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE ARRESTED ARE NOT GUILTY AND IF YOU HOLD THEM FOR THAT PERIOD OF TIME THEY DON'T GET THOSE DAY I BACK.

>> AND WE SAW SOME REPUBLICANS VOTE AGAINST THIS FOR THOSE EXACT REASONS, WHICH IS WHOA, WE'RE DEPRIVING PEOPLE OF LIBERTY WITHOUT DEFINING WHAT SUBSTANTIAL RISK MEANS, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PROVE YOUR CASE THE WAY YOU DO IF YOU CONVICT SOMEONE.

IT DOES REQUIRE -- THERE IS A LEVEL OF PROOF REQUIRED AT THAT HEARING IN ORDER TO WITHHOLD BAIL ENTIRELY IN THE THE CURRENT SYSTEM.

>> AGAIN IT JUST DEPENDS ON WHAT IT IS AND HOW SUBSTANTIAL IT IS AND WHETHER IT'S GOING TO GET INTO EVIDENCE OR NOT.

THERE ARE A LOT OF QUESTIONS ON THAT THAT CAN'T BE RESOLVED.

>> I'M NOT SURE EVERY SUSPECT HAS LEGAL REPRESENTATION.

SOME COUNTIES I THINK DO AVID AFFORD THAT OPPORTUNITY DO YOU.

>> TIME NOW FOR VIEWER FEEDBACK.

EACH WEEK WE POSE AN UNSCIENTIFIC POLL QUESTION AND THIS WEEK'S QUESTION IS SHOULD INDIANA CHAIN THE CONSTITUTION TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO BE HELD WITHOUT BAIL?

LAST WEEK WE ASKED YOU WHO YOU THOUGHT SHOULD BE THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE FOR THE U.S. SENATE IN 2024.

77 PERCENT SAY JIM BANKS, 58 SAY GOVERNOR RICH DANIELS.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TOE TAKE PART THIS THE POLL GO TO WFYI.ORG WFYI.ORG.

>>> INDIANA HOUSE MAKERS VOTED TO PASS A BILL THIS WEEK THAT WOULD MAKE I WOULD EASIER TO PUNISH NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS.

ADAM YAY YAY REPORTS.

>>> MANY OPPOSING THIS BILL AGREE WITH PART OF IT.

SOME LAWMAKERS HAVE ISSUES WITH THE PROVISION TAKE AWAY A TROOP'S RIGHT TO REQUEST A COURT MARSHAL INSTEAD OF DEALING WITH ADMINISTRATIVE PUNISHMENTS.

LISA WILKEN IS VICE PRESIDENT OF THE INDIANA COUNCIL BOARD.

>> TAKING THE ABILITY TO TAKE COURT MARSHAL AWAY GIVES COMMANDERS THE UNFEDDERRED ABILITY TO DOLE OUT PUNISHMENT THAT CAN BE APPEALED AFTER THE FACT.

>> THE BILL'S AUTHOR CHRIS JETER ARGUES THE ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM IS CHOCK FULL OF DUE PROCESS.

>> APPEAL THE JUDGMENT A LOT MORE THAN ANY OTHER EMPLOYER WOULD GIVE.

>> JETER NOTES THE BILL WOULD GIVE CONFINEMENT AS AN OPTION.

>>> BEYOND THIS BILL THERE'S BEEN ISSUES OF OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS OVER SOME MILITARY AND VETERANS BILLS WITH THE MAJOR VETERANS GROUPS FRACTURING OVER THEM.

WE SAW THAT A YEAR OR TWO AGO AND IT'S HAPPENING AGAIN WITH THE AMERICAN LEGION SPLITTING WITH IS IT BIG FOUR VETERAN GROUPS.

IS THIS A TREND AT THE STATEHOUSE?

>> I THINK IT'S A CONSISTENT THEME.

WE HAVE THE LARGE VETERAN ORGANIZATIONS AND SOME AN SALARY GROUPS THAT PEEL OFF FOR AN ISSUE, LIKE CANNABIS OR HEALTH CARE ISSUES SO I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARILY TROUBLING OR A TREND.

THE AUTHOR OF THIS BILL SERVED IN THE NAVY AND IS A RESERVE JAG SISTERS AND COAUTHORS ARE TO NATIONAL GUARD VETERANS CAN THIS BILL BRINGS TO LINE WHAT OTHER STATE NATIONAL GUARDS ARE HANDLING THIS.

AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER AS A COURT MARSHAL WHERE IT'S APPROPRIATE.

>>> I'VE NEVER SERVED IN THE MILITARY, MY DADDY DID BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WOULD BAR THIS FROM HAPPENING, I GUESS.

WHY MINT THIS CHANGE THIS LEGISLATION?

WHY BAR THEM FROM REQUESTING A COURT MARSHAL FOR LOWER LEVEL OFFENSES?

I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I DRUG WITH, WHY DO THIS AT ALL?

>> IN THE MILITARY LIKE ANY ORGANIZATION LIKE THIS YOU HAVE A TENSION BETWEEN DUE PROCESS AND EFFICIENCY, AND YOU CAN'T HAVE A COURT COURT COURT MARSHAL IS SOMEBODY IS REQUIRED TO STAY IN THEIR BAR RACK FOR THE WEEKEND, SO SOME OF THESE LOWER LEVEL THAT DON'T INVOLVE INCARCERATION HAVE TO BE HANDLED BY THE CHAIN OF COMMAND.

THERE'S STILL AN APPEALS PROCESS IF YOU HAVE AN ABUSIVE COMMANDER WHICH CAN HAPPEN.

BUT BASICALLY THE LOW LEVEL OFFENSES SHOULD BE HAND INTERNALLY.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE DISCIPLINE T. WHEN PEOPLE TALK ABOUT MILITARY JUSTICE I'M NOT SURE THAT'S NOT AN OXYMORON.

WITH THE CHAIN OF COMMAND YOU SURRENDER CERTAIN RIGHTS WHEN YOU'RE IN THE MILITARY.

YOU'RE SUBJECT TO ORDERS FROM A SUPERIOR OFFERINGS AND YOU'VE GOT TO FOLLOW THEM, SO IT MAKES SENSE TO DO THAT.

THE CHAIN TO HAVE SOMEBODY BESIDES A GOVERNOR CONVENE A COURT MARSHAL SHOULD FEEL BEEN DONE A LONG TIME AGO.

>> THERE IS MORE TO THIS BILL WHEN IT COMES TO COURT MARSHALS AND THERE'S A SENATE VERSION OF THIS BILL TOO WHERE COURT COURT MARSHALS DON'T SEEM TO BE HAPPENING IN THE NATIONAL GUARD.

>> THE GOVERNOR HAND CALLED ONE IN YEARS AND YEARS AND WHAT WASN'T MADE CLEAR IS WHY NOT.

THEY'VE ADMITTED THEY HAVE HAD FOUR SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES THAT SHOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH A COURT MARSHAL INSTEAD OF THIS ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS BUT THEY NEVER EXPLAINED ARE THEY ASKING THE GOVERNOR TO CALL A COURT MARSHAL AND HE'S NOT?

I'M NOT SURE WHERE THE BREAK DOWN IS OCCURRING.

>> GOING BACK TO MY ORIGINAL QUESTION THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME WE'VE SEEN VETERAN GROUPS MAKING A LOT OF NOISE AT THE STATE HOUSE OVER SOMETHING -- A BILL THEY DON'T LIKE.

BUT AS MIKE POINTED IT IT DOES SEEM TO BE THE SMALLER AN SALARY GROUPS SO ARE THE CONTROVERSIES MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING?

>> I DON'T KNOW THE ISSUE ENOUGH TO SAY THERE'S MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING.

I THINK IT'S NOT SURPRISING THAT YOU DO SEE DIFFERENCES OF OPINION BECAUSE YES THERE IS THE COMMONALITY THAT THEY SWEAR AN OATH AND WARE A UNIVERSAL AND PROTECT US FROM ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC, BUT IT'S NOT MONOLITHIC.

YOU HAVE PEOPLE IN -- MY FATHER A WORLD WAR II VETERAN WHO MAYBE VIEW THINGS DIFFERENTLY FROM SOMEBODY WHO EITHER DIDN'T SERVE IN COMBAT OR WAS A VIETNAM VETERAN, AND AGAIN AGE IS NOT THE ONLY -- >> NO, BUT YOU KNOW I THINK YOU INCREASINGLY SEE A LOT OF DIFFERENCE TEEN THE WAY VETERANS WERE TREATED AFTER THEY CAME HOME FROM VIETNAM VERSUS THE GULF -- >> AND I THINK WE LEARNED HOW NOT TO TREAT VETERANS WHO WERE DOING -- FULFILLING THEIR OBLIGATION TO SERVE THEIR NATION, MAYBE IN AN UNPOPULAR WAR BUT IT SHOULDABLE BE TAKEN OUT ON THEM.

I'M SURE PEOPLE WHO HAVE A MUCH BETTER HANDLE ON THIS VIEW THE THAT'S AS A NECESSITY AND THERE IS SOME EFFICIENCY VALUE TO THIS.

>>> FOUR YEARS AGO, INDIANA FORMED A TASK FORCE TO COME ONE A STATEWIDE ENERGY PLAN AS THE COUNTRY TRANSITIONS TO MORE RENEWABLE ENERGY.

NOW NOW A STATEHOUSE BILL AIMS TO DO JUST THAT.

INDIANA BROADCASTING REBECCA THIELE REPORTS IT PASSED UNANIMOUSLY OUT OF COMMITTEE THIS WEEK.

>> THE BILL CUTS THE AMOUNT OF POWER UTILITIES CAN BUY FROM THE GRID DURING PEAK DEMAND IN HALF.

THE BILL'S AUTHOR REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVE ED SOLIDAY SAYS GRID OPERATORS ARE CONCERNED THE U.S. COULD FACE MORE BLOW OUTS AS UTILITIES RELY MORE ON THE GRID.

>> THEY SAY EVERYONE IS BUYING CAN NO ONE IS SELLING.

>> THE INDIANA ENERGY SOUTH KOREA SAYS UTILITIES GENERATE OR CONTRACT OUT MOST OF THEIR POWER ANYWAY AND THAT THE BILL WOULDN'T CHANGE THEIR PLANSFUL THE WOMEN SAYS THE STATE AGENCY THAT OVERSEES UTILITIES HAS TO CONSIDER FIVE THINGS IN MOST OF IT DECISIONS.

IS.

>>> JON SCHWANTES, AT LONG LAST IS THIS A STATEWIDE ENERGY PLAN THAT PUTS INDIANA ON A GOOD PATH?

>> NO.

>> I THINK IT'S A SOUND POLICY AND WE'VE STUDIED THIS AS A STATE FOR A LONG TIME.

SEVERAL SESSIONS, THE TASK FORCE, THE GROUP AS LOOKED AT VARY ASPECTS OF A THIS AND NO ONE CAN ARGUE, I THINK CAN THIS IS WHY WE SAW IT COME OUT AS A UNANIMOUS VOTE IN COMMITTEE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE FIVE CRITERIA THERE'S NOT A BAD ONE IN THERE, WE WANT TO HAVE RELIABLE ENERGY, BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS IF THERE'S A FLAW, AND MAYBE THERE WON'T BE, THE MAYBE THIS IS AN ASPIRATION AND WE CAN MOVE TOWARDS THIS AS A GOAL, BUT MUCH AS WE TALKED ABOUT WITH RISK TO THE PUBLIC, WHAT IS AFFORDABILITY?

WE SAW THE CITIZEN'SA COALITION SAY WE NEED TO DEFINE FURTHER WHAT THAT MEANS, IS IT SIX PERCENT OF GROSS PAY IS THIS BECAUSE YOU CAN SAY RELIABILITY TO ONE PERSON IS NOT TO ANOTHER.

THERE IS A NUMBER IN HERE, ABOUT 85 PERCENT OF THE UTILITIES WOULD HAVE TO EITHER GENERATE THEMSELVES -- IN OTHER WORDS THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO SUMMON THAT ENERGY AT A MOMENT'S NOTICE, AND HAVING SEEN WHAT'S HAPPENED WITH BROWNOUTS IN TEXAS -- >> RELYING ON THE GRID.

>> AND THAT'S MY QUESTION TO YOU WHICH IS IS THIS GOING TO DO THAT MUCH IN TERMS OF THE FUTURE?

>> I DON'T KNOW, I MEAN I THINK THEY'VE MADE A START ON THIS PLAN AND THEY'RE GOING FOR SORT OF OVERARCHING GOALS AND I THINK -- YEAH I PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BECAUSE IT'S NOT THAT SPECIFIC, BUT I CAN SEE WHERE A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO WANT MORE SPECIFICS AND IT DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH AND I THINK THAT WILL BE THE FIGHT FOR THE REST OF THE SESSION.

>>> AS THEY SAY I'M OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER WHEN MIKE PENCE PROMISED THIS IN HIS 2012 CAMPAIGN AND ERIC HOLCOMB PROMISED IT IN HIS 2006 CAMPAIGN AND AFTER A FOUR YEAR STUDY, IS THIS ENOUGH?

>> NO, IT'S NOT ENOUGH AND IT REALLY IS, I THINK DESIGNED TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR RELICENSE ON FOSSIL FUELS CONTINUES BECAUSE WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IS THEY APPEAR TO BE DOING SOMETHING TOWARDS SUSTAINABILITY AND ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF ENERGY BUT THEY'RE NOT REALLY DOING ANYTHING, AND IN FACT THE ONE BILL THAT WAS THERE TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO BUY INTO REGENERATED ELECTRICITY, GETS VOTED DOWN, SO THIS IS THEIR ATTEMPT TO PROTECT BASIC UTILITIES AND FOSSIL FUELS AND STILL PUT A FIG LEAF TO SAY WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS BUT WE DON'T WANT TO DO VERY MUCH.

>>> WHEN WE THINK ABOUT OUR ENERGY FUTURE AS A STATE IS THIS A LITTLE TOO BROAD IS THIS DO WE KNEETH NEED A LITTLE MORE SPECIFICITY?

>> THE MARKET'S CHANGED AND GONE TOWARDs RENEWABLE ENERGY, THE HIGH PROFILE EARLY THIS THE PROCESS WAS OVERT PROTECTION OF FOSSIL FUELS WHERE LARGE ENERGY COMPANIES WERE GOING HANG ON WE'RE CONVERTING TO SOLAR.

WE DON'T HAVE STATEWIDE STANDARDS, A COUNTY COUNCIL CAN BLOCK A LARGE SCALE RENEWABLE PROJECT.

>> OR SMALL SCALE.

>> WE DON'T HAVE A TEXAS BROWNOUT NETWORK.

WE CAN BUY WHOLESALE POWER IF WE NEED IT AND INTENTION SATELLITE RIGHT WORD BETWEEN MOVING TOO FAST AND HAVING RENEWABLE ENERGY HAS BEEN THE STANDARD EVEN AS THE MARKET CHANGES.

>> WE'LL SLOW IT DOWN AS LONG WE CAN.

>>> THE INDIANA BLACK LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS SAYS ITS FOCUS IN 2023 IS CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP.

HELPING REDUCE INEQUITIES IN EDUCATION, HOUSING AND HEALTH CARE.

>> ONE OF THE BILLS A LONG TIME PRIORITY IS ALSO ON THE GOVERNOR'S AGENDA THIS YEAR, AUTOMATICALLY ENROLLING STUDENT THIS IS THE STATE'S 21ST CENTURY SCHOLARS PROGRAM.

THE PROGRAM PROVIDES FULL TUITION TO INDIANA COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES FOR MIDDLE AND LOW-INCOME STUDENTS BUT IBLC CHAIR EARL HARRIS SAYS THE PROBLEM IS YOU HAVE TO ENROLL IN SEVENTH OR EIGHTH GRADE.

>> A LOT OF TIME THE PARENT DOESN'T KNOW ABOUT IT YOU CAN THE CHILD DOESN'T KNOW ABOUT IT AND BY THE TIME WE HAVE THE CONVERSATION IT'S TOO LATE.

>> HARRIS SAYS WHILE THE CAUCUS HELPS REPRESENT BLACK HOOSIERS THEIR AGENDA ISN'T MEANT TO SERVE ONLY ONE GROUP.

>> TEACHER SUPPORT, FINANCIAL SUPPORT, PUBLIC HEALTH.

ALL OF THIS HELPS EVERYONE, DOESN'T MATTERS IF YOU'RE BLACK, WHITES, LIBERTARIAN.

>>> OTHER PRIORITIES INCLUDE SCHOLARSHIPS FOR BLACK AND HISPANIC STUDENTS PURSUING HEALTH CARE CAREERS AND ENDING DESCRIPTION IN HOUSING PROPOSALS.

>>> TO BE HONEST I DON'T THINK I'VE HEARD IT AS MUCH AS I HAVE ALL OF THE SUDDEN.

>> THE GOVERNOR PUT IT ON HIS AGENDA.

>>> RIGHT BUT IT WASN'T LIKE THEY'VE BEEN TRYING TO DO THIS FOR TEN YEARS AND THEY'VE BEEN BLOCKING IT AGAIN AND AGAIN PUNISHES WHILE THEY'RE AT IT THEY SHOULD LOOK AT IT WHAT'S MAGICAL ABOUT SEVENTH GRADE?

WHY CAN'T YOU SIGN UP IN NINTH GRADE?

THERE ARE A LOT OF WAYS THEY COULD DO THAT BUT OBVIOUSLY IF MORE KIDs SIGN UP THEN YOU'RE PAYING FOR THEIR COLLEGE CAN THAT HAS A FINANCIAL TAG AT THE END.

>>> I WILL SAY THIS, IT'S HARD TO SAY HERE'S GOING TO BE THE FINANCIAL IMPACT BECAUSE WHEN YOU'RE ENROLLING KIDS IN SEVENTH AND EIGHTH GRADE YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW MANY KIDs WILL TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS.

IT'S POSSIBLE THEY WILL MOVE OUT OF STATE OR DECIDE NOTES TO GO TO COLLEGE, SO IT'S HARD TO COME UP WITH A THIS IS HOW MUCH THIS BILL IS GOING TO COST: I THINK IT'S AN AMENDMNT THE LAST FEW YEARS FROM DEMOCRAT.

>> I'M SURE THE LACK OF CERTAINTY IS TROUBLING TO SOME PEOPLE BUT AS A STATE CAN'T WE AGREE IF THERE'S ANYTHING TO PUT OUR MONEY INTO IT'S I SURING A QUALITY EDUCATION FOR SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO BECOME A CONTRIBUTING MEMBER OF SOCIETY.

IN THE UNLIKELY EVENT THAT 100 PERCENT OF PEOPLE MAINTAIN THEIR ELIGIBILITY BY STAYING AWAY FROM DRUGS WITH WE SHOULD CELEBRATE IT.

>>> AND IN TERMS OF RETURN ON INVESTMENT, THE PROGRAM, THE STUDENTS WHO USE THIS PROGRAM DO REAL WELL, RIGHT?

>> THERE'S WORSE PROBLEMS THAN 100 PERCENT OF LOW INCOME KIDS THAT MEET THE CRITERIA.

>>> EXACTLY.

>> IS THIS THE YEAR FOR IT?

>> EXACTLY AND THERE'S NO REASON NOT TO EXPAND IT.

THE GOALS OF THE LAST SEVERAL REPUBLICAN GOVERNORS HAVE BEEN TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF COLLEGE GRADUATES AND WE'RE GOING THING WRONG WAY.

>> IF SUPPORTERS WENT TO EXPANDING VOUCHERS -- ALTHOUGH THE VOUCHER PROGRAM OR THE CHARTER SCHOOL PROGRAM DOES NOT HAVE THE SUCCESS RATE OF THE 21ST CENTURY SCHOLARS PROGRAM >>> POST SECONDARY ATTAINMENT, AGAIN THAT MIGHT BE -- >> MANDATORY FAFSAS, MANDATORY SIGNING UP FOR FINANCIAL AID FOR KIDS >>> ABSOLUTE.

>> WE'RE CLOSER TO IT THAN WE'VE EVER BEEN BEFORE AND THIS MIGHT BE THE ONE THAT GETS IT OVER THE HILL BUT WE'LL SEE BECAUSE ULTIMATELY IT'S UP TO THE BUDGET AND.

>> TALK ABOUT WORKFORCE AND THE ECONOMY AND WHEN WE'RE STRUTTING OUR FORCE FOR COMPANIES THAT WANT TO MOVE HERE AND IF WE CAN SAY WE HAVE A PROGRAM THAT'S SUCCESSFUL THAT'S QUITE A SELLING POINT.

>>> THAT'S INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW FOR THIS WEEK.

YOU CAN FIND INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW'S PODCAST ON EPISODES AT WFYI.ORG/IWIR.

I'M BRANDON SMITH FOR INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING.

JOINERS #E US NEXT TIME BECAUSE A LOT CAN HAPPEN IN IN AN INDIANA WEEK.

>>> THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE PANELISTS.

INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW IS A WFYI PRODUCTION IN ASSOCIATION WITH INDIANA'S PUBLIC BROADCASTING